logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.12.18 2012노966
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, but there was no shocking of the victim with the instant vehicle.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a CA test vehicle.

On April 15, 2012, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.120% by driving the said vehicle on April 15, 2012, at 06:50, the Defendant, while driving the said vehicle and driving the said vehicle, temporarily stopped in the open parking space in the left side of the left side of the vehicle by driving the vehicle on the number-free taxi in front of 168-122 coming from the opposite direction.

In such cases, the driver has a duty of care to safely drive the driver after taking into account whether he/she is either a person or another vehicle in the direction of progress.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was unable to drive normally due to the fact that he is unable to walk normally, he received the victim D (35 years of age) walking from the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle as the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and suffered injury, such as the climatic salt, which requires treatment for about two weeks.

B. The lower court found all of the facts charged in the instant case guilty based on the evidence adopted by the lower court.

C. 1) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial, and the acknowledgement of guilt must be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge determined that the facts charged are true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined as the defendant's benefit (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2010Do963, Nov. 11, 2010).

arrow